A Debate Experience

In my second debate with Bruce Reeves of the "Church of Christ" on the subject of eternal security, apostasy, falling from grace, perseverance, etc., mentioned in a recent posting, I was able on several occasions to really put Bruce in a difficult spot regarding his interpretations of bible texts. One such case occurred in our debate concerning the rocky or shallow ground hearer in the parable of the sower and the seed, or of the four soils. I affirmed that the persons represented by this type of hearer of the word were not genuine true believers, but were what we call "nominal," "temporary," "shallow," believers. They were what the old Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century called "leaves only" believers, believers who did not last long, falling away not long after their profession of faith and bearing no fruit. Bruce argued that these were real believers, people who had truly been saved or born again and having proved this, he proves that believers can lose their salvation since the text says that the fate of the temporary believer is to be destroyed ('withered away'). One of his arguments for these believers being true believers was in this form:

1. Receiving the gospel (seed) "with gladness" (as did the shallow ground believer) denotes salvation

2. The shallow ground hearer (believer) received the word "with gladness"

3. Therefore the shallow ground hearer was saved (a true born again believer)

One of my retorts put him in a tight spot. He never responded to it. I said "Bruce, by that reasoning you must say that I am a true believer and born again for I have received the gospel with gladness." 

Some of you might not know that the Campbellites don't believe Baptists are saved, or true believers. Therefore, he was saying that Baptists have not received the gospel with joy. He was forced into that position because of his contention that the shallow ground hearer must have been saved since he received the gospel with gladness. "The legs of the lame were not equal" here. 

Since he believed that only true believers, only ones born again, were members of his own denomination (those who call themselves "Church of Christ"), he must then believe that they and they alone have received the gospel with gladness!

I of course had other arguments to prove that the shallow ground believer who "fell away" from the faith was not saved. I also had other arguments to show how receiving the gospel with joy upon initially hearing it was no sure proof of regeneration. Herod rejoiced in the preaching of the Baptist I showed. But, he was not saved. Of those who rejected him, our Lord said that they were "willing for a season to rejoice in his (John Baptist) light" (John 5: 35). That of course did not mean that they were saved.

Was he not in a tight spot?

P.S. Both Campbellism and Hardshellism hold serious errors on the parable of the soils. I have written on this extensively in other posts. Also, there was a lot more argumentation on this parable than I mention now.